Are children sacrificed in the interests of an abusive father's right of access?

Spanish law recognises children as direct
victims of gender violence, but an abusive father's right of access on visits
sanctioned by the judiciary means children are being killed by their
estranged fathers. In Spanish.

Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

On the 7th of November
last, an historic demonstration in the struggle for women's rights took place
in Madrid. Ángela González Carreño
whose child was murdered by her ex-partner, the father, in a visit sanctioned
by a judge, spoke to the enormous crowds in the protest against gender violence.
Close by members of the extreme right wing party “Vox” tried without success to
besmirch the face of the march. What the demonstrators reinforced were calls to
respect existing laws and they emphasised in speeches and banners that
structural alterations needed to be made to change societal values and to
attend to the demands of the women who have experienced gender violence.

Since 2008, according
to the UN, 31 children have been killed in Spain by their estranged fathers, 20
on visits sanctioned by the judiciary. Changes made in 2015 to the law on
gender violence underline the need for protection of children, especially
vulnerable in cases of imposed shared custody.

7 N Clothes line in Madrid. Photo: Liz Cooper

A major
poll in 2015 found that 12.5% of women over sixteen, resident in Spain,
have suffered physical and or sexual violence from their male partners or
ex-partners, on at least one occasion. A UN report on Spain by the Committee
for the Elimination of Violence against Women (CEDAW)
reported that since 2008, 31 children had been killed by their estranged
fathers, 20 of whom on access visits sanctioned by a judge. For many women and
children, an apparently comfortable and secure home can be a very dangerous
place indeed. The Spanish Socialist
Government in 2004 introduced a pioneering law, La Ley
Orgánica 1/2004 which legislated in detail on the issue of violence against
women on the part of their male partners or ex-partners. The 2004 law was modified in this year of a
general election, by the current conservative Government in the Ley
Orgánica 8/2015, introducing important changes that recognized children as
direct victims of gender violence.

However, changes to
the law also gave the Courts the opportunity to make judgements on civil
measures related to paternal authority.
The positive effects of the law will be limited if the role that
children play in gender abuse is not understood; that children are fundamental
to the decisions taken by many of the women involved. Almost 25% of women who
decide not to continue with an official complaint of violence, state that it is
because “he is the father of my children”. Men who consider themselves the
owners of their female partners, well understand the role played by the
children in the lives and decisions of their mothers and may use this knowledge
to coerce and
dominate. Effective solutions for
many women are unavailable because administrators, and above all the judiciary,
are not rigorous enough although, as the centre-left daily El
Pais commented in 2012, they are aware how the abusers can manipulate the
situation through the children.

The
response of the UN Committee on gender violence, see reference above to CEDAW,
to the violence suffered by Ángela González
Carreño included the requirement that the antecedents of violence must be taken
into account when determining issues of custody and pattern of visits to ensure
the security of the victims and their children. The Committee also demanded
that the judges and administrators should be free of gender stereotypes and one
Committee member observed that in
Spain children were being “sacrificed on the altar of a father's rights”

Abusers are capable of adapting and disguising
their violent intentions, above all where there is no agreement to shared
custody. The State should remain vigilant on behalf of the children. Without reference to the feminist movement
and in what appear to be for reasons of equality, those who defend these norms
often use the children as a weapon with which to control and harass the victims
of abuse. The consequences will be negative, especially for those women who
decide to end the violent relationship but do not make an official complaint
for various reasons: insufficient proof, fear, lack of faith in the
administration and the courts. They will also be negative for the women who may
have won their case in court but once the aggressor has completed his sentence,
will no longer be given any kind of protection.

These norms flourish
in the context of inequality between men and women, where for example according
to studies from the European
Commission, women earn 16% less than men and where 34.9% of the women at
work are on part-time, as against 8.6% of working men, and where women do the
majority of unpaid work in caring for others. To impose shared custody, without
agreement, in such a context is to the detriment of women’s and children’s
lives. In the first place where there
is no communication it will be impossible to manage even routine issues and
will increase stress on the women and children; secondly one has to assume a
loss of buying power which will affect negatively their quality of life. This
kind of required family organization will also mean that ex-partners will have
to live near each other, limiting work and social possibilities.

In the face of lack of
communication between parents, the children will tend to be used as a postal
service as in most cases they will have to move from one partner’s house to
another, on a weekly or two weekly basis, with the accompanying trauma that
this involves: environmental changes, separation from friends etc. It is no
surprise that these rules are invariably followed by the trumpeted statement
“assuming the interests of the young person to be paramount”. However the rule
in itself does not defend nor guarantee the superior interests of the young
person and seems to impose
other interests.

7 N protest in Madrid. Photo: Liz Cooper

In the manifesto that Ángela
González Carreño read at the beginning of the march in
Madrid (7N) she rejected the imposition of shared custody and asked for the
withdrawal of access to the children of men who have abused the women with whom
they have lived. Her words were cheered
by many of the estimated 200,000 present and via the social media by many more.
The 7N calls that “the struggle must go on”, “enough is enough “,
“we want to live” continue to resonate. The week following the demonstration
eight women were assassinated by men in what has to be assumed was an attempt
by the murderers to impede women’s increased freedoms through more
intimidation, fear and murder.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.